try-catch name

[White Wolf]

Hi,

I cannot believe my eyes, but so far I could not find out what is the name
of the construct, which is built from one try block and the catch clauses
(handlers). I am not looking for a grammar name, but something people can
remember, like handler. But is not handler, because those are the catch
clauses and the try does not belong there. I have looked at all my books
and the standard, but I could not find a name. :-(

Is there anyone who knows that name? If there is, please share it with me
here. :-)

--
WW aka Attila
:::
RTFM: Not just an acronym, it's the LAW!

[GB]

White Wolf wrote:

Hi,

I cannot believe my eyes, but so far I could not find out what is the name
of the construct, which is built from one try block and the catch clauses
(handlers). I am not looking for a grammar name, but something people can
remember, like handler. But is not handler, because those are the catch
clauses and the try does not belong there. I have looked at all my books
and the standard, but I could not find a name. :-(

Is there anyone who knows that name? If there is, please share it with me
here. :-)

It's called a try statement.

Gregg

[White Wolf]

GB wrote:

White Wolf wrote:

Hi,

I cannot believe my eyes, but so far I could not find out what is the
name of the construct, which is built from one try block and the catch
clauses (handlers). I am not looking for a grammar name, but something
people can remember, like handler. But is not handler, because those
are the catch clauses and the try does not belong there. I have looked
at all my books and the standard, but I could not find a name. :-(

Is there anyone who knows that name? If there is, please share it with
me here. :-)

It's called a try statement.

Thanks. Could you tell me where can this be found? I have tried to find
"try statement" in the standard, in The C++ Programming Language Spec.
Edition and even Google.

As far as I can see the try statement is not used by C++ literature (it is
used in C# and Python), or where it is used it is used either as the synonim
for the try keyword or the try expression, none of which contains the whole
try-and-all-catch thing. That is why I have asked for source of
information, I cannot seem to find it.

--
WW aka Attila
:::
Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day. Teach a man to fish and he
will sit in a boat all day drinking beer.

[GB]

White Wolf wrote:

GB wrote:

White Wolf wrote:

Hi,

I cannot believe my eyes, but so far I could not find out what is the
name of the construct, which is built from one try block and the catch
clauses (handlers). I am not looking for a grammar name, but something
people can remember, like handler. But is not handler, because those
are the catch clauses and the try does not belong there. I have looked
at all my books and the standard, but I could not find a name. :-(

Is there anyone who knows that name? If there is, please share it with
me here. :-)

It's called a try statement.

Thanks. Could you tell me where can this be found? I have tried to find
"try statement" in the standard, in The C++ Programming Language Spec.
Edition and even Google.
As far as I can see the try statement is not used by C++ literature (it is
used in C# and Python), or where it is used it is used either as the synonim
for the try keyword or the try expression, none of which contains the whole
try-and-all-catch thing. That is why I have asked for source of
information, I cannot seem to find it.

Well I have to admit, I looked (albeit briefly) and couldn't find a
definite answer either. That's just how I would refer to it. The grammar
treats the try-block as a statement and the catch handler as a
statement, but it is a semantic error to have one without the other, so
the whole construct would appear to me to be a statement. It is
certainly true that the whole construct can be used as one. For example:

if (cond)
try {
}
catch (...) {
}

I think maybe the standard calls the whole construct an exception
handler, which consists of a try clause and a catch clause.

Gregg

[GB]

White Wolf wrote:

GB wrote:

White Wolf wrote:

Hi,

I cannot believe my eyes, but so far I could not find out what is the
name of the construct, which is built from one try block and the catch
clauses (handlers). I am not looking for a grammar name, but something
people can remember, like handler. But is not handler, because those
are the catch clauses and the try does not belong there. I have looked
at all my books and the standard, but I could not find a name. :-(

Is there anyone who knows that name? If there is, please share it with
me here. :-)

It's called a try statement.

Thanks. Could you tell me where can this be found? I have tried to find
"try statement" in the standard, in The C++ Programming Language Spec.
Edition and even Google.

As far as I can see the try statement is not used by C++ literature (it is
used in C# and Python), or where it is used it is used either as the synonim
for the try keyword or the try expression, none of which contains the whole
try-and-all-catch thing. That is why I have asked for source of
information, I cannot seem to find it.

Well I have to admit, I looked (albeit briefly) and couldn't find a
definite answer either. That's just how I would refer to it. The grammar
treats the try-block itself as a statement, but it would be a semantic
error to have the try-block without one or more matching catch clauses,
so the whole construct would appear to me to be a statement. It is
certainly true that the whole construct can be used as one. For example:

if (cond)
try {
}
catch (const myexc&) {
}
catch (...) {
}

I think actually the standard calls the whole construct an exception
handler, which consists of a try clause and a catch clause.

Gregg

[GB]

White Wolf wrote:

GB wrote:

White Wolf wrote:

Hi,

I cannot believe my eyes, but so far I could not find out what is the
name of the construct, which is built from one try block and the catch
clauses (handlers). I am not looking for a grammar name, but something
people can remember, like handler. But is not handler, because those
are the catch clauses and the try does not belong there. I have looked
at all my books and the standard, but I could not find a name. :-(

Is there anyone who knows that name? If there is, please share it with
me here. :-)

It's called a try statement.

Thanks. Could you tell me where can this be found? I have tried to find
"try statement" in the standard, in The C++ Programming Language Spec.
Edition and even Google.

As far as I can see the try statement is not used by C++ literature (it is
used in C# and Python), or where it is used it is used either as the synonim
for the try keyword or the try expression, none of which contains the whole
try-and-all-catch thing. That is why I have asked for source of
information, I cannot seem to find it.

Well I have to admit, I looked (albeit briefly) and couldn't find a
definite answer either. That's just how I would refer to it. The grammar
treats the try-block itself as a statement, but it would be a semantic
error to have the try-block without one or more matching catch clauses,
so the whole construct would appear to me to be a statement. It is
certainly true that the whole construct can be used as one. For example:

if (cond)
try {
}
catch (const myexc&) {
}
catch (...) {
}

I think actually the standard calls the whole construct an exception
handler, which consists of a try clause and one or more catch clauses.

Gregg

[GB]

GB wrote:

I think actually the standard calls the whole construct an exception
handler, which consists of a try clause and one or more catch clauses.

For example, in section 1.3.9, it refers to the "catch clause of an
exception handler".

Gregg

[White Wolf]

GB wrote:

GB wrote:

I think actually the standard calls the whole construct an exception
handler, which consists of a try clause and one or more catch clauses.

For example, in section 1.3.9, it refers to the "catch clause of an
exception handler".

Thank you for the help!

I think that the confusion is then complete. :-) C++ Primer excusively
calls the catch clauses handlers, and so does the grammar. So I guess I
have to call it try-catch or try&catch until a better name comes along. I
would just allow room for ambiguity with either (otherwise good) name. :-(

--
WW aka Attila
:::
The easiest way to find something lost around the house is to buy a
replacement.

[Alf P. Steinbach]

* White Wolf:

GB wrote:

GB wrote:

I think actually the standard calls the whole construct an exception
handler, which consists of a try clause and one or more catch clauses.

For example, in section 1.3.9, it refers to the "catch clause of an
exception handler".

Thank you for the help!

I think that the confusion is then complete. :-) C++ Primer excusively
calls the catch clauses handlers, and so does the grammar. So I guess I
have to call it try-catch or try&catch until a better name comes along. I
would just allow room for ambiguity with either (otherwise good) name. :-(

How about "try-catch statement"?

Just ignore the darned standard, it's very non-standard (heh) in its
terminology...

--
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is it such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?

[GB]

White Wolf wrote:

GB wrote:

GB wrote:

I think actually the standard calls the whole construct an exception
handler, which consists of a try clause and one or more catch clauses.

For example, in section 1.3.9, it refers to the "catch clause of an
exception handler".

Thank you for the help!

I think that the confusion is then complete. :-) C++ Primer excusively
calls the catch clauses handlers, and so does the grammar. So I guess I
have to call it try-catch or try&catch until a better name comes along. I
would just allow room for ambiguity with either (otherwise good) name. :-(

I see I was mistaken when I said that the grammar treats the try part
alone as a statement. The grammar uses the term try-block to refer to
the whole construct, including the catch clauses, not just the try part.
However, both the standard and Stroustrup's book use the term "try
block" to refer to the try part alone. For example, at the end of page
187, he says "If any code in a try block - or called from it - throws an
exception, the try block's handlers will be examined." However, this is
not literally true if the exception handlers themselves are considered
part of the try block.

Gregg